- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:30:50 -0000
- To: <www-svg@w3.org>
"Tobias Reif" <tobiasreif@pinkjuice.com> > Jim Ley wrote: > > > Yes, but that's just a minor change to the text selection rules > > (select > > all text contents of the outer text element.) it's not something that > > motivates the need for tspan: > > > > <text x="1em" y="1em">Hello <tspan dx="2em" > > dy="2em">World</tspan></text> > > Would seem to be identical to: > > > > <text x="1em" y="1em">Hello <text dx="2em" > > dy="2em">World</text></text> > > I find Thomas' explanation of the reasons for tspan very sensible. > > A tspan ("inline", ~span) is something different from a text ("block", > ~p/div). DIV isn't a block element in HTML. I also don't agree that the distinction is particularly useful in SVG, and as it causes us the problems you've shown with the A element which disappear if text did follow the html's DIV element. I certainly think it's a lot more useful to have sensible link text rather than some supposed html crossover, and the inability to style portions of a link differently is totally limiting in that: Consider me wanting to link to Ian Hickson Weblog, using his style (see: http://ln.hixie.ch ) I would use in HTML: <a href="http://ln.hixie.ch/"><span class="domain"><span class="subdomain">log<sub>e</sub></span><span class="dot">.</span><span class="hixie">hixie</span><span class="dot">.</span><span class="ch"><span class="c">c</span>h</span></span></a> So the direct conversion of span to tspan would give me this: <text x="100px" y="100px"><a xlink:href="http://ln.hixie.ch/"> <tspan class="domain"> <tspan class="subdomain">ln</tspan> <tspan class="dot">.</tspan> <tspan class="hixie">hixie</tspan> <tspan class="dot">.</tspan> <tspan class="ch"> <tspan class="c">c</tspan>h</tspan> </tspan></a> </text> Of course as we note that isn't valid, what would be valid is too big for me to contemplate writing here, and leads us into problems with WCAG ( http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-TECHS/#tech-divide-links , http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#link-text ). So whilst re-using the semantics of another mark-up language is helpful, that's not what we've done we can't translate our a+span in html to a+tspan in svg, so far from increasing understanding of SVG, we've increased confusion by having similarly named elements be different. If that's the only motivation for tspan, then I would certainly like to see it removed, and have text an allowed child of text, as this link issue makes authoring accessible content difficult. [Issue: WG - Please acknowledge.] Jim.
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 09:34:17 UTC